Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimping


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  06:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Chimping

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been tagged as unreferenced since January. It is also tagges as having inappropriate tone. The term "chimping" was coined in on the SportsShooter email newsletter. The references are: the original email on SportsShooter, a video of "Chimping exposed!" on SportsShooter and a category of images on Flickr tagged as "chimping". Much of the article reads as original research, the tone is indeed inappropriate and includes evident speculation or personal opinion. Little beyond the single paragraph of "history" would survive cleanup, and even if cleaned up it would probably be deleted as a slang dictionary definition. Cruftbane 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Sc straker 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Keep per below. Guess it isn't a neologism as I thought.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wherever it was coined, it's become part of the photojournalist's lexicon and there are plenty of reliable sources for an article. and has made its way into books on professional photography technique . (Note: practically every one of the sources defines the term as well as using it, satisfying WP:NEO.) More than a dicdef as it is an aspect of camera selection as well as photography technique (i.e. taking more pictures than you would with film, then discarding). --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adequate notability and sourcing.  Also, the article hasn't been tagged for deletion which seems sloppy.  Colonel Warden 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the template to the article. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Ben 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I hope no one minds me placing an afdw on PiccoloNamek's talk page... as he appears to have more than one non-trivial edit on the page. -- Ben 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion per User:Colonel Warden. NHRHS2010  Talk  23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- per Dhartung's excellent reasoning, and AGF.JJJ999 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As Dhartung has demonstrated, it's a real termed technique of digital photographers. --Oakshade 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable term, as confirmed above.--Bedivere 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.